3 ms·

Also, there are enough people meticulous enough to follow up on the sources. When a source is not freely available online that often involves going to the libr

Also, there are enough people meticulous enough to follow up on the sources. When a source is not freely available online that often involves going to the library and looking things up; there are people who spend many hours a week doing this, unpaid as a hobby.

kulahan 3y ago
This really isn't true. There are references hidden around Wikipedia which link to a report for proof, but the report was actually linking to the Wiki page to begin with. It becomes circular proof, and it's pretty tough to spot.
rewmie 3y ago
> Also, there are enough people meticulous enough to follow up on the sources. There's an insidious aspect to Wikipedia's reliance on verifiability: any wild claim can be posted, repeated by third parties, and afterwards have Wikipedia refer to those third parties as sources. I know this to be a fact because I read a Wikipedia article on the subject. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_citogenesis_incidents https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_citogenesi...